Fence in hazard

[dreaded_snowman]

Played our match (byerxa/snowman vs Eldred/bobblehead) on Sunday at Cartier and came upon a fence. It was a par 5 dogleg right with water to the left of the final 100 yards wrapping around the back of the green.

2 of us hit and ran over the green, into what would normally have been the drink. When we arrived we found a yellow staked hazard with a short fence (like snow fencing) that kept running balls from entering the river. The fence was fully inside the hazard, about 2 feet in. One ball (mine) was just far enough from the fence to be playable; the other one (Som's) was not (only about an inch from the fence).

The question was if the ball against the fence was eligible for relief. At the time, we decided that it was not eligible because the fence was in a hazard. I checked my rulebook (USGA, I have to admin, not RCGA) and it seemed to come down to whether the fence was a temporary obstruction (in which case I believe relief would be granted) or permanent, in which case there would be no relief...

It was a bit of a clutch situation, as I was able to get up and down for par from there, while Som was basically hosed.

So what should we have done?

[justsomeguy]

The USGA, R & A and RCGA rulebooks are identical, so it really doesn't matter which one you use. This situation is covered in Rule 24:

Rule 24
Note 1: If a ball is in a water hazard (including a lateral water
hazard), the player may not take relief from interference by an
immovable obstruction. The player must play the ball as it lies
or proceed under Rule 26-1.

A temporary immovable obstruction is something that is not normally found on a golf course. The most common examples are grandstands, TV towers, tents, etc.

[Waynester]

Played our match (byerxa/snowman vs Eldred/bobblehead) on Sunday at Cartier and came upon a fence. It was a par 5 dogleg right with water to the left of the final 100 yards wrapping around the back of the green.

2 of us hit and ran over the green, into what would normally have been the drink. When we arrived we found a yellow staked hazard with a short fence (like snow fencing) that kept running balls from entering the river. The fence was fully inside the hazard, about 2 feet in. One ball (mine) was just far enough from the fence to be playable; the other one (Som's) was not (only about an inch from the fence).

The question was if the ball against the fence was eligible for relief. At the time, we decided that it was not eligible because the fence was in a hazard. I checked my rulebook (USGA, I have to admin, not RCGA) and it seemed to come down to whether the fence was a temporary obstruction (in which case I believe relief would be granted) or permanent, in which case there would be no relief...

It was a bit of a clutch situation, as I was able to get up and down for par from there, while Som was basically hosed.

So what should we have done?

Wouldn't the fence be a movable obstruction (if it's a snow fence)? Therefore applying Rule 24-1 (a)?

[AAA]

Wouldn't the fence be a movable obstruction (if it's a snow fence)? Therefore applying Rule 24-1 (a)?

It depends on
a) if could be moved without unreasonable effort or
b) if the committee had declared it an IO by local rule.

[LobWedge]

Without being able to see the fence in question, the following guideline should be used. From the definition of Obstruction:

An obstruction is a movable obstruction if it may be moved without unreasonable effort, without unduly delaying play and without causing damage. Otherwise, it is an immovable obstruction.

Note: The Committee may make a Local Rule declaring a movable obstruction to be an immovable obstruction.

[LobWedge]

It depends on
a) if could be moved without unreasonable effort or
b) if the committee had declared it an IO by local rule.

Or, what he said.

[AAA]

Or, what he said.

[justsomeguy]

Also keep in mind that the only relief you get from a moveable obstruction is to move it - you don't get a free drop to a nicer spot!

[dreaded_snowman]

Sorry for the late reply, I was in Tremblant golfing and working since my return. The fence in question was not moveable, nor was any local rule stated to our knowledge, so I believe we ruled correctly.

[PapaPat]

Sorry for the late reply, I was in Tremblant golfing and working since my return. The fence in question was not moveable, nor was any local rule stated to our knowledge, so I believe we ruled correctly.

It was Match Play and you managed, as most often happens, to agree on the ruling you would use. Then that really is the end of the matter.

I understand that you are curious about how this situation would be treated under the RofG. But, in Match Play, in the absence of a Referee, once both sides come to an agreement, all else is commentary.

[LobWedge]

But, in Match Play, in the absence of a Referee, once both sides come to an agreement, all else is commentary.

Huh? Have you read Rule 2-5? There's a specific procedure in place.

[PapaPat]

Huh? Have you read Rule 2-5? There's a specific procedure in place.

2-5 begins, "In Match Play, if doubt or dispute arises between the players....". Here we have none. They agreed. Even if they are wrong in what they agree upon, as long as they are not deliberately trying to circumvent a rule or the spirit of the game, that's the end of it.

2-5 is little understood and very important. It kicks in when the sides do not agree on something and as you say there is a set procedure that must be followed. The general practice of let's just play on and we will check in the ProShop when we get in, is just not how it is done. Also, there is no 3-3. Match Play is a contest between two sides each of which is fully present and expected to look after their own interests. 2-5 is a procedure to be used only when this fundamental of Match Play breaks down.

What the two players in our question did was exactly correct, and the matter was over when they teed off on the next hole. Whether or not they applied the rule correctly is only fodder for the recounting of the game over a beer.

[PapaPat]

Huh? Have you read Rule 2-5? There's a specific procedure in place.

By the way, have you read 2-5/8.5?

[justsomeguy]

By the way, have you read 2-5/8.5?

I understand where you're coming from, but you really shouldn't use broad statements like "once both sides come to an agreement, all else is commentary."

For example, there is an exception in Rule 2-5 when a later claim may be made. And I'm sure you've read Rule 1-3 about both sides coming to an agreement.

[PapaPat]

I understand where you're coming from, but you really shouldn't use broad statements like "once both sides come to an agreement, all else is commentary."

For example, there is an exception in Rule 2-5 when a later claim may be made. And I'm sure you've read Rule 1-3 about both sides coming to an agreement.

I believe that my answer was appropriate to the context of the original question. I don't see how either of your examples relate to or add anything to addressing the issue at hand. As for 1-3, I believe I covered that as well even though it was not a consideration in the situation described.

The important thing is for players to understand that without stating that they disagree and going through a claim procedure, the issue is to be settled by them out on the course, not brought back in to the clubhouse for some arbiter to help them decide. What is described is a classic case of how a situation like this is to be resolved properly. And, as I said, once they agreed, all the rest is just an opportunity for us to demonstrate what we know or don't know about the RofG.